To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=60681
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 31 09:04:42 -0800 2006 ------- My system is Win XP, SP-2. I'll check if on NT4 also this behaves the same way (will be able to do it in two days). Issue 49629 describes only "part-1" in my attachment; but "part-2" (which is different)is not described there. My original bug mentions only the reference fields, but when zhanghongbin added sorting of ordinary numbers; I added that example as well in my sample (as "part-1"). My bug is actually "part-2" in the sample. But I don't get it: If Issue 49629 is an accepted AND resolved bug, and its the target of is 2.1, how come you are unable to reproduce the bug? It should still be there in 2.0.2! If you take the table in part-2 of the attachment, are you able to select the rows 2-5 and sort them such that they are in proper ascending order? Can you edit my sample file and post it here? Please sort both sample-1 and sample-2. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
